brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Good Articles
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it.' Note:''Voting for GA content will close Friday August 21.'' * Hi, since it was previously voted that we should have some sort of "Good Articles" scheme here, I thought we should probably establish one sometime soon. I was wondering what people thought should make a Good Article, how it should be displayed that the article is a good article, how the voting, if any, should be carried out when the scheme is implemented, and any other suggestions anyone has. Suggestions I have for the topics mentioned above are: * What should make a Good Article: follow the Manual of Style, have content in infoboxes filled out as much as is possible, has appropriate headings, and has a suitable amount of information about topic ("suitable" would probably have to be defined here, or talked about for each article being voted on) * How article is diaplayed as a Good Article: Suggestions I have are to create a template to be put at the top of the article, or to modify Template:set header as suggested here. A category should probably be created too, which could easily be integrated into the template or change to the set header. * Voting: I think if the scheme was to go ahead, it would probably need some form of voting. I suggest that it be restricted to registered users, voting on an article should last for a minimum of one week, and need a score of say +3 to pass. Also, any opposers must say why they are opposing so that the article can be fixed up, and if it has been decided that the issue has been addressed, the opposing vote can be removed. Anyway, these are just some thoughts, and would like to get some feedback or any other ideas if you have an opinion. Thanks, 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) * I think it sounds great. 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) ** Thanks :) Any preference of any of the alternatives? 08:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC) *** Anyone at all? 01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC) **** Sorry, haven't checked back in a while. What alternatives? 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ***** Sounds great!Filip Skywalker 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC) = Voting = Good Article Content Follows Manual of Style Completely (+6) Support # Kind of given 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) # The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ / } 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC) # -- 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) # Good!Filip Skywalker 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments * IT could be ok if it doesn't it follow it completly, like 1 rule broken.-- 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Have Infoboxes filled out completely, or as best as potentially possible (+3) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # -- 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments Have at least one well-written original paragraph of decent size describing what the page is about (+2) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose # Let's not get to drastic! 1 paragraph! What is you don't know that much.-- 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Comments Displaying page is a Good Article Modify Template:Set header as seen here (+3) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # How cool!-- 12:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments * I've just realised that since this template is for sets, this can obviously only be used on set GA's, so not sure what to do about this now. Maybe we should, if this gets through, do this for set articles, and see how we go for the others at this point? 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) * Maybe we should try a similar approach as in Wikipedia or Wookiepedia, were the symbol is displayed in the same line as the pagetitle. --LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Create separate template to show page is a GA (-1) Support Oppose We don't need a new page.-- 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Comments * Seems as if it may look odd. 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Have a template similar to Template:FApast (±0) Support Oppose Comments * I'd be happy to support this if we could figure out a way to get it working :) Although I still think that the modified set header would look better, it can't be used in every article 09:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Voting Restrict voting to registered users (+4) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # Of course. 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # --LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) # -- 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments Voting must last for a minimum of one week (+4) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) # -- 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments Must have vote of +3 to pass, containing no opposing votes with legitimate reasons (+4) Support # 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) # I agree!-- 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments Set up a group similar to Wookieepedia's AgriCorps, where at least one member of this group must support the article for it to go through (-1) Support Oppose # Dosen't seem necessary.-- 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Comments * Seems kind of unnecessary. 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ** Agreed- it was just an idea, but probably not necessary when we don't have heaps of users like on Wookieepedia, but I don't mind either way :) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) If after 3 weeks a nomination has not reached a score of +3, or legitimate opposing votes have been made and not addressed after one week, the nomination is to be removed (+5) Support # Don't think it's a good idea to have nominations around forever 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) # Agreed. 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC) # LegOtaku (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) # -- 12:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC) # Filip Skywalker 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments = General Comments = Category:Forum archive